Slashdot Mirror
How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA
Hugh Pickens writes "Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years, but Stewart Baker writes in the Hollywood Reporter that when the fight went from the committees to the floor and Wikipedia went down, the Democratic and Republican parties reacted very differently to SOPA. 'Despite widespread opposition to SOPA from bloggers on the left, Democrats in Congress (and the administration) were reluctant to oppose the bill outright,' writes Baker. 'The MPAA was not shy about reminding them that Hollywood has been a reliable source of funding for Democratic candidates, and that it would not tolerate defections.' That very public message from the MPAA also reached another audience — Tea Party conservatives. Most of them had never given a second thought to intellectual property enforcement, but many had drawn support from conservative bloggers and they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them." (Read on, below.)
Pickens continues: "Pretty soon, far more Republicans than Democrats had bailed on SOPA, the Republican presidential candidates had all come out for what they called 'Internet freedom,' and now for Republicans, opposition to new intellectual property enforcement is starting to look like a political winner. 'It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley,' concludes Baker, adding that unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well."
made popcorn as soon as I saw this come up in red - have at it kids.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I want to mod this article as Flamebait.
The Democrats have been Hollywood's party for a long time now, so of course they would support this sort of bill more than the Republicans. These "two" parties are differentiated only by which set of corporations they work for the benefit of, after all (and the two sets are not even disjoint).
Palm trees and 8
Dems backed by Hollywood and green tech, Repubs backed by fossil energy and military tech; parties found attacking opposition's supporters. Film at 11.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Tea Party types like myself HATE HATE HATE SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. We see them for what they are: power grabs by BOTH the MPAA/RIAA et all AND the government. As a generally conservative/libertarian group of people, we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives. Not more.
So the Tea Party HAMMERED the GOP over this one and unlike the Dems, the GOP LISTENED and responded in the way the people wanted.
There are alot of people on /. that consistently say that there is no difference between the parties. I think this serves as an excellent example of why these people are wrong.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Politicians don't want to tick off their funding sources, will do anything to score a cheap point.
This is a surprise to anyone, anymore?
It truly is.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Did some politicians just say that it sometimes helps to listen to the electorate?
MY HEAD A SPLODE.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Thank you Republicans!
Seriously, the guy who introduced the bill is in the GOP. Give me a break slashdot.
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
We are forgetting that Lamar Smith, a Republican first proposed this thing, correct? Face it, it wasn't Tea Party supporters or Republicans that stopped this. It was all of us that wanted Internet freedom. It was the threat of being voted out of office that made these politicians reject it, not one party or another. You bet your ass either side would pass it if they thought they could get away with it.
"they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them"
seriously, it's taken the gop & tea nuts HOW many years to figure this out? I'm no fan of either but it's always amazed me how enthusiastically they've greased the rails for laws designed to divert cash-flow to their opponent's biggest donors...
who knows? maybe there's hope that in another few decades they'll figure out fraud & forgery actually ARE crimes when committed by banks (not just individuals) or that molesting children & microwaving their parents doesn't make flying any safer or maybe even that spending $ arresting/prosecuting/incarcerating people for THC is basically setting it on fire...
yes, I'm a wild optimist at heart...
The movie industry is deeply engaged with labor unions. The Democrats tend to favor labor unions, so the movie industry often pushes for Democrat candidates to keep their status quo union agreements.
That's odd, the article says:
Ever since GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole claimed that Hollywood produced "nightmares of depravity" that coarsened American culture and made "deviancy" mainstream, movie studios and record labels have enjoyed a spectacularly uneasy relationship with the Republican Party.
So it appears that the "think of the children" supporters of Republican candidates made them tough to buy by the MPAA and RIAA which like to sell "indecent" materials if it will turn a profit.
I'm quite confused by your assertion that the companies and corporations support those who support labor unions. Um, I thought that labor unions allowed workers to band together to turn the screws on the companies that employ them -- thus detracting from the company's massive profits and gaining more benefits and pay for the workers? Why would the CEOs and lawyers that feed off those profits pay into politicians that support the labor unions that could have them shrinking those profits? Is there something special about MPAA/RIAA unions that actually shifts the capital up to those companies like Universal Music Group and the big studio executives?
My work here is dung.
I agree with the Tea Party position here. What's next? Pigs flying? Snowballs in hell?
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
I don't know if it is a good thing but it shouldn't be shocking that there are "party discipline" differences between the Dems and GOP. It just happens that this time it was pointed towards something popular to hate.
I'm a libertarian at heart but I just can't stand the Democrats anymore - especially the new bunch whose main objective is to restrict every right of everybody on this planet.
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I know, I know, there are a lot of rotten apples in the Republican camp - but then, there are a lot of rotten apples everywhere, and my main objective now is to stop that bunch of lunatic Democrats who are doing everything to restrict everybody's rights
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
...my ass. MPAA and RIAA have been using the Constitution for toilet paper for a long time now. Individual rights? Bill of rights? Certain rights to Creators? Ex post facto? Perpetuities for starters (over 100 yrs? Intellectual - Hollywood?
This is the geek-world "Truth That Dare Not Speak It's Name," namely that it is the liberal/democrat machine that continues to give oxygen and sustenance to that e-e-e-e-e-e-evil content distribution industry. Maybe it's because so many of the artists themselves usually espouse left-wing politics, support the democratic candidates, and will not know how to earn a dime if technical progress continues to chip away at the struts in the old content/contract/distribution/residuals system.
"Popcorn," indeed...
The framers of the constitution designed-into its bosom: protection to those who engaged in commercial corruption. Those who wrote it, intended it so, it was their way, back them. The real failures in the constitution are two: both pointed to by the article: 1. failure to include, provide for and deliver to every human citizen- American full and fair disclosure about the activities of the humans that operate in or for USA, Inc. (DBA Constitutional Government), and 2. failure to provide the governed human Citizen-Americans an independent [of the USA, Inc. scope and authority], an exclusive right of the governed human citizen-American to investigate, depose witnesses, charge, indite, prosecute, convict and punish those persons[human or corporate] acting in, or for, or under color of our government. In other words, if the governed, who are subject to the government, watch-dogged, those who run the government or who contract with those who run the government: the interest the government serves would be better balanced between democracy and commerce. The theory of democratic assurance is that oversight by the governed is required to preserve the integrity of those who represent the governed. Oversight is different from socialism because oversight does not empower the governed to direct the government, but proper oversight would empower the governed to protect democratic integrity and to prevent corruption or abuse by those who operate or contract with the government.
That is how opposition parties and groups are supposed to behave - to point out and oppose stupid things being promoted by the other side.
Shear opposition without selection is stupid, but so is a bought-and-paid-for bipartisanship.
Propose a bill that will stir negative public opionion then let your offshoot political branch be the "ones against it". Does anyone really believe the tea baggers want free access to any content.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I was wondering which party would flip on SOPA first and use it as a political weapon against the other.
ACTA, PIPA, SOPA could make Americans most hated nation on the planet. Get a look at latest events in Poland, Ukraine and other counties.
Also both are CHAIRS of both of their respective committees, House Judiciary committee and House Judiciary Intellectual Property Sub-Panel. (I would imagine that unless you are the Chair, it is pretty hard to get something out of committee.)
That said, there must be something to this story; the Hollywood Reporter is a well known publication. Perhaps, the Dems (of which I am one) WERE more reluctant to withdraw their support for this bill. All I can say is, nobody's perfect (and there are many many other times when the Repubs supported bad bills) and intellectual property laws ARE seriously lacking/screwed up and need fixing.
Just not in this way!
People often say that money buys elections, but it doesn't. Money buys voters, who decide elections. It's just that it can be very difficult to influence voters, so if someone offers a politician money, he takes it. If you can truly offer that politician, voters, he'll drop the money people without a second thought.
The trick is to get enough voters on your side, then convince the politician that you actually speak for that group, and they will actually vote your way. Much, much easier to write a check.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
who was... wait for it... A democrat.
I'm not going to blame either side for this... I think we can agree that both parties have been on both sides of this issue.
Lets just be happy SOPA died and remember in the future that MAYBE the "other" party which ever that might be for you MIGHT not be made up entirely of vampire demon nazis... and might just be okay people with a different perspective on things.
Honestly, most of the political disagreements would go away if we stopped trying to impose things on people that don't want to participate. If you have a great idea... great. Anyone that actually likes that idea will support it. If your idea involves forcing people at gun point to do what you say though... maybe it isn't such a great idea.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Sounds like a simple case of, "We don't like them, and we don't like you, so since they give you money, we'll oppose it."
They took a shot at a populist win and ran with it. I can't fault them for that.
The Republicans deserve credit for how they stand up for freedom in general and against SOPA in particular. If I were a single-issue voter, this would make me vote republican. They have the correct position on this issue.
Of course, I'm not a single-issue voter, and the Republicans are pants-on-head-retarded about almost everything else. But give them credit for being right this once.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
When they introduce the very same anti-Internet legislation in the name of fighting pedos instead of pirates, will conservatives and the Tea Party still focus on what the underlying game is?
I hope it isn't just about scoring points on the Hollywood libruls, but really understanding that this is the type of bill you have to stop if you believe in smaller government and reject concepts like the Fairness Doctrine.
You obviously didn't notice the distinct lack of concern over social conservative issues at most Tea Party rallies. The uniting issues across the Tea Party movement are fiscal policy, civil liberties, immigration control and strong national defense. In fact, some of the major Tea Party figures have openly said that the Tea Party as a movement is welcoming to social conservatives, but that it simply does not have a social issue stance as a movement.
You walk away from your loan, your credit history is ruined and it follows you to your grave. Corporations pass all their profits and assets to other corporations, renege on all their liabilities, and go bankrupt. They are systematically privatizing profits and socializing the losses. Some of you tea party guys are paid shills of these corporations. The others are unwitting tools, cannon fodder.
It is really sad the greatest nation on earth, the first nation built on the principles of liberty and freedom was undermined by a few greedy people. To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, Never in history have so many people been so thoroughly screwed by so few greedy men.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Democrat: political wing of one set of powerful businessmen;
Republican: political wing of another set of powerful businessen;
Tea Party: political wing of another set of powerful businessmen;
Distraction: arguments about "left" and "right" and "freedom" and "the People".
civil liberties
how about liberty from religion ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
"Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years," You give the folks in Washington far, far more intellectual prowess than they deserve.. It's only been in recent years that, they finally discovered how to play solitaire on their puter...
There's nothing liberal or progressive about curated computing, it's a fascist concept.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I now have a problem who to vote for. I mean the Republican Right and Tea Party are as mad as a box of frogs and seem to want to oppose freedoms on issues like abortion, whereas the Democrats seem to be the Pro Hollywood party. May as well flip a coin now.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The GOP candidates, except for Ron Paul, seem to think that laws should be made based on religious views.
On the contrary, he thinks that there should be no separation between church and state, and rather that laws should be based on Christian religious views. Ron Paul is pro-life because of his religious views. And, rather than thinking the government shouldn't be involved in private medical decisions, he thinks it should be criminal, and investigated and punished.
Ron Paul also doesn't believe in evolution.
The NeoCon have decrease the size of the government to the detriment of the American people. Example; small government with 64,000 employees manages tax revenues of 4 trillion, so all employees make good salaries which in-turn goes into the local communities, and the excess is turned over private employers which over-charge the government and pay their employees the least amount of money possible, while moving jobs out of the country. A smaller government is under staffed with allows private industry to rape the citizens. Larger government with 5,000,000 employees managing tax revenues of 4 trillion provides good wages to the government employees which in-turn goes into the local communities, well staffed to prosecute and investigate companies which rape the citizens, jobs stay in this country.
Liberal != Liberty.
Step through the YRO section here - the vast majority of stories about liberties being screwed with are happening at the hand of democrats. Sad state of affairs.
Hollywood is not going to abandon the Democrats over killing SOPA. Are we really to believe that Steven Spielberg would be writing checks to the Newt Gingrich campaign if Democrats had helped kill SOPA? Give me a break. It's not going to happen and every Democrat knows it. No liberal is going to start supporting Republicans because they took the political opportunity to align themselves with silicon valley on ONE issue.
Everyone here is so self righteous they see what they want to see. The Democrats want to keep their donors happy, and the Republicans want to hurt them, end of story. Republicans aren't suddenly the populist heros, listening to their constituents. What a joke.
You don't need to look further than Chris Dodd to see how Hollywood has bought the Democrats. Democrat sympathizers pervade Hollywood, and Hollywood money fills Democrat pockets. Dodd tried to keep up appearances when he was a Democrat Senator in Congress, but as soon as he left and could accept the big money from Hollywood without being investigated, he publicly acknowledged that he wishes we had China-style censorship to protect his (and Democrats') masters.
Unfortunately, since Hollywood is so strongly pro-Democrat, today's young people almost never question the Democrat Party. When they do get close to doing so, Hollywood is quick to misdirect them to the Republican Party. Maybe this will teach some of you to wake up and not take what one side says at face value and reject everything the other side says without thinking.
Depends on how you mean it.
If you mean: freedom to be an Atheist, then yes. Absolutely. Freedom of Religion also means the freedom to be an Atheist or an Agnostic or simply not care one way or the other.
If you mean: Freedom from ever having to hear or be influenced by anyone else's religion and actively preventing religious people and politicians from acting upon their religious conscience or proposing laws in line with that conscience, (IE: Freedom FROM Religion) then no. That would mean impinging upon someone else's freedom of religion and freedom of expression and would be a violation of the Constitution.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
What does Apple have to do with the GOP and the TEA party? Or the "progressives"?
The above comments are for the most part well thought-out, reasonable, conversational in tone, and not the typical /. idiocy from both sides of an argument. I really enjoyed reading them even if I didn't agree with all of them. Thanks!
All that time he was off, I could enjoy Slashdot like I used to for many years.
Now we are back to the usual partisan right-wing horseshit, where Slashdot is a soapbox for propaganda, not "news for nerds"
Fuck you, Timothy
While not a particularly religious person, I'm getting pretty tired of this sort of crap. There is no such thing as freedom from someone else's constitutional rights. Which part of the US Constitution grants you the right not to be offended?
Dont buy the hype. A few months back many of these republican guys/gals opposing SOPA were the same people trying to kill net neutrality. Please explain how can you be against the ramifications of SOPA/PIPA AND against net neutrality. How is that not hypocrisy?
Right now this sounds like politicians riding a populist wave with little knowledge of their decisions
Sorry, that's not guaranteed. That's akin to me saying "How about liberty from muslims."
The Constitution allows you liberty of religion, that means you can worship as you please...or not at all (atheist). That you won't be required to worship a certain way.
It does not give you the protections nor the right to eradicate any other beliefs from around you. This is a logic fallacy many atheists fall into.
No, you can be an atheist. And I can be a Jedi. But you have no right to say I can't worship as a Jedi nor express, you just have a right to say "I'm doing my own thing..."
That would be Paul who is running as a Republican in the primaries. But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war, but yet Obama is a very pro-war president.
If Paul were somehow to win he'd rightfully be classed as a non-interventionist. Were the United States directly attacked I have no doubt that he would respond forcefully and decisively. Interventionism is an entirely different animal and much harder to classify than simply saying someone is "pro" or "anti" war. For better or worse both major parties have been interventionists since FDR and WW2. Pearl Harbor and the specter of Communism after WW2 conspired to neuter the isolationist/non-interventionist wing of both major parties. I doubt that's likely to change in the next generation or so.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Limited immigration is crypto-racism.
It has nothing to do with the economic conservatism that you are proposing as the core Tea Party value.
so yeah, I guess it doesn't matter who is in office--they're all the same. right?
The problem the Tea Party has is being represented by absolute fraking loons like Michele Bachmann. As an outsider, it gives us a foreigners yet another reason to point and laugh at the colony of crazy that is America.
Named Richard Mack, backed by the Tea Party. Mack is most famous for being one of the plaintiffs in a case that overturned key provisions of the Brady Bill.
There is a large difference between 13-term incumbents and the Tea Party.
Limited immigration is a core need of every nation-state on the planet. Why not check out the immigration policies of some other countries before you pass judgement on those who would simply like to enforce ours?
Also, "crypto-racism"? Wow. If that's not a far-leftist Orwellian newspeak style word I don't know what is. Creepy.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
So, to restate: More than a decade after the technical experts on the implementation side began explaining that centralized inhibition of copyright infringement is a costly boondoggle which will do far more to harm the public than to prevent copyright infringement, and more than a year after more fiscally minded people started asking whether we should be reducing copyright grants and enforcement instead of increasing them on a pure GDP maximization basis, the Tea Party decide to test the waters of supporting the rational, societally beneficial side. They did so when we technologists finally got so fed up that we started turning off the Internet. Actually, it wasn't just that -- they also realized (and frankly it was mostly this) they could use it as a political wedge issue to angle a few more seats in the power-and-pork circus.
Yeah, that's great. Nice work guys. Today you are truly statesmen.
I'll make you a deal -- you start showing some actual leadership on this issue. Start doing some research on the cost effectiveness, publishing the results, and using your offices as a serious bully pulpit to explain why the very spirit of America demands unhindered free speech on the Internet. You show that you understand why every step we have taken on digital copyright enforcement from the DMCA forward has been a direct violation of America's most sacred principles. You start trying to explain that to the populace, instead of just flapping in the breeze of popular emotionalism. You do that, then I'll stop thinking you are shameless opportunists who are only slightly less despicable on this particular issue than any of the other corrupt vermin in D.C.
Oh, and one more thing: You better make it clear that free speech means radical Muslims and American dissidents too. Everyone gets to speak, even if they are insane, evil, violent assholes.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
atheism is not a religion, so freedom of religion is not entirely correct for me.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
who modded this insightful? The republicans (since the tea party formed) havent had the power to repeal any of these things. The tea party IS against the TSA, The PATRIOT act, not so much but they want to rid us of the TSA.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Congressional Republicans were all for SOPA/PIPA until the big backlash starting last December. Quite a lot of that backlash was organized by progressive groups, though certainly not all of it. It's true that Congressional Democrats suck on copyright and mostly they ignored even the backlash. But out among the people, I saw a lot more opposition from people aligned with no party and from progressives than I saw from any Tea Party organization.
There was however a substantial Tea Party opposition, too. I quibble with the framing of this story as "Tea Party vs Democrats", because it looked like a lot more Democratic party members (voters, not politicians) than Tea Party "associates" (or whatever they are). Tea Partiers are generally quick to anger at any government action at all, so riling them up against law that uses any government power is no great feat or news. Progressives are more selective about government exercises.
But it's just a quibble. Really the story here is the great common ground Tea Partiers have with progressives. Almost any progressive position that opposes a government action is compatible with the Tea Party agenda. The notable exceptions are putting people in jail, invading/bombing other countries, and outlawing abortions - but there isn't even complete Tea Party consensus on those issues.
Americans are partisan only when organized into factions by parties; outside the tribalism there's far more consensus on every issue than we ever see among our elected "representatives". When we organize into political action according to an issue, not according to loyalty to some group, we agree far more than we disagree. Getting Congress to back away from copyright tyranny is a good example of our common ground. I hope we can use it to not only roll back copyright tyranny, especially its latest escalations. I hope we can use the lesson to see that we stand united mostly, and our differences can be disputed in debate rather than the war we've been in too long.
--
make install -not war
That still says more about the opposition.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
At what point has a major point of tea party rallies been shoving religion down your throat? Individual supporters, yes. Because the tea party is a cross section of people who care about government size, it includes both social conservatives and social liberals.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
So letting religious folks make laws to restrict freedom for non-religious is okay, but non-religious making laws to restrict freedom of the religious is not okay?
What the hell? That's insane.
Type 1: There was a terrible change for the worse when Obama replaced Bush.
Type 2: There was a terrible change for the better when Obama replaced Bush.
Neither type has any grasp of reality and is just being played by PACs.
If you support a world where that F stick Michael Moore's voice is your guiding light, O-bummer reigns supreme and the cost of fuel and food rises so fast we can't afford weekly trips to the grocery anymore then you are recognized as a threat to the human gene pool.
There was a recent study by a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario which found (amongst other things) that low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice.
Now, what was that about supporting the Republicans?
What were the four slogans of IngSoc?
War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is power. Democrats and Republicans are opposed to each other.
My dear US-ians... You live under a single party system. Yes, a bit disguised as two parties, but so close to each other that they mean exactly the same in the end. And there are more parties, sure, but the system is crafted so that none of them will ever achieve anything. With a 48% vs. 47.5% (or whatever...) effective support, nothing will ever change, while it gives the illusion of balance and competition. Which is completely bogus.
The USA is about as democratic as the countries whose political systems it has subverted over the past century.
The United States already has a limited immigration policy. This is not what the Tea Party proposes. They propose police harassment of anyone who looks like he might be an immigrant, denial of basic human rights to anyone who looks like an immigrant, denial of rights guaranteed in the Constitution to anyone who looks like an immigrant, denial of the benefits of the society they pay taxes in to anyone who looks like an immigrant and so on.
NONE of this has anything to do with the concept of fiscal conservatism. It's a warped social agenda just like the idea of pushing religion in schools, preventing the teaching of scientific concepts that conflict with superstitions promoted by religions, attempting to limit tax benefits to heterosex married couples when the equal protection clause specifically makes this sort of behavior unconstitutional etc.
If you want to try to slap a label on what I am saying like 'liberal', go ahead. It just further exposes your position that the Tea Party is just about fiscal conservatism, which is something I am in favor, of as being baloney.
Its obvious that most leftists are against this. Espcially most grass roots orgs.
Its really time for the grass roots leftists to realize that celebrites and the media industry does NOT have their best intrests at heart and just plays them.
The Republicans are in bed with their own corporate agendas, and no one is suggested they aren't. but ever since the tea party has been around they've had an angry populist base to keep them in line.
While the democrats are busy getting their grass roots activists worked up and paranoid about the tea party, what they really should be doing is making their own grass roots organization instead of bitching about the tea party.
Its also funny to point out there is a grain of truth in republican propaganda about "liberal elitests". By that we can soley mean the democratic party and its agents in other leftist organizations. Instead of fixing the issue, they just throw their base under the bus. The solutiuon isn't swallowing republican values hook line and sinker, but instead forcing the democrats to listen to their base, not their source of bribes. That said, they make a valid point of bold face democrat hypocracy. This won them elections in 2010.
I'll go further. The media machine is also what sells votes to special intrest groups, being that most PR firms have heavy ties to washington AND hollywood. Money would NOT be able to buy votes without the paid work of advertising men who learn their trade at the same schools and institutions as movie dirrectors. They are the same source. They do the same thing. There is no diffrence.
The republican party in the last 5 years has been quick to adapt to new a new base. They've gotten good with new media. The Obama campaign was an exception to the democrat rule.
again the solution is more grass roots movements, and to keep all special intrests out peroid. While free speech on line is only an issue, its been pointed out its a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. Its a new tool for coreting the horrible ballance away from a few elites to the populace at large. This lets people talk to people without a middleman to censor and mix up ideas.
It also makes it harder to "buy" an election with advertising money. I mean what would the point be if not one really took the TV seriously? You can buy out every blogger. There are potentially unlimited blogs. Nothing from keeping the people of speaking about "sell outs"
...right here.
I think you need to figure out what "grassroots organization" means. If the party gets it together, or a few rich guys fund it, then it isn't grassroots........
In case you hadn't noticed, the OWS movement is a grassroots movement that didn't need something like Freedom Works to bus people in to their events.
I know Bhuddists who would say it's not a religion. Many Christians would say Christianity isn't a religion. But the basic usage of religion in context is as a "set of beliefs". Atheism is a belief system. To deny such would be irrational.
When you say someone can't follow the beliefs they want, then you're stepping over the bounds.
When you say you should be free to follow your belief system, I will support you in that.
I'm not Wiccan, but I think they should have the right to have their 5 point star on the military graves.
Or none...
But atheists get to the point of extreme irrationality, as all dogmatic belief systems tend to do. And you get people who think there should be no crosses on grave stones in government owned cemetaries.
Crazy stuff like that....is just as crazy as any other religious nut job.
Likewise,
I think they're probably about as good as .38 against a tank.
They guy in the tank has to come out to pee eventually.
The guy in the tank relies on gas from a guy who is not in a tank.
Modern military hardware cannot crush an armed populace wholly against you.
They can easily control an unarmed populace, even without a tank.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You realize I never actually endorsed the guy nor said I'd be voting for him, right? All I said was that his foreign policy platform is properly classified as non-interventionist, not anti-war.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster
Note SEEMS.
You know what that is? Because as soon as a Republican is elected, the press are at them hammer and tongs to find anything that even LOOKS like corruption.
Meanwhile a Democrat elected has a press that buries stories about ACTUAL corruption or anything negative until it is so blindingly obvious that bloggers are embarrassing the media with reports (Edwards, Fast & Furious, etc).
If you are truly against corruption you should vote in the candidates the press actually looks for corruption in. Otherwise, you are just part of the coverup.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I believe the media narrative.
GOP = Nazis, friendless losers, authoritarians, cops, religious fanatics, boring, bad
Dems = Frodo and Sam, revolutionaries, the hippest kids in town, sexy, intelligent, wise, exciting, good
If you deny the media narrative, you'll end up a friendless loser.
Futurist Traditionalism
Oh, by all means Ralph; vote 3rd party so we can have another Florida 2000.
And for the first time the national debt skyrocketed in peacetime. Reaganomics was badly broken, despite what conservatives say.
Don't mistake this for supporting Dems - to me Democrats and Republicans are the same low hanging fruit with just a slightly different flavor. I mean, for f*@ks sake, SOPA had Lamar Smith and Al Franken backing it, and if the conservative Republican and crazy liberal see eye-to-eye and fail to see how it will cause mass censorship to legitimate sites we have a problem. SOPA's potential impact on foreign public domain servers scared me most, since some of these have copyrighted content in the US (and say it is!) even though it is public domain in their country. Now imagine wikipedia and google having to delist any of those a US copyright holder wanted blocked. It isn't fair to users in that country since they can't use US based tools like google to find this legally obtainable content and much of the content may even be legal to US users, so it isn't fair to them, either, especially if the site goes out of their way to say where it is legal.
My religion says I shouldn't have to pay my tax money to support your religion.
Why do I need to care which party is bailing out more than the other? The bill is exploitable by certain group of people and should be dismissed forever that what I care for. Giving credit to a political party is just plain politic... What is your real intention?
So letting religious folks make laws to restrict freedom for non-religious is okay, but non-religious making laws to restrict freedom of the religious is not okay?
What the hell? That's insane.
Religion in a nutshell. (Damn... that's an O'Reilly title just begging to be written.)
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
for their efforts. Normally, I'm opposed to most of what they do and stand for, but it's nice that we can find common ground (which is sorely lacking in our modern political discourse). Yes, a lot of asshole Democrats kept supporting it and will get their ass handed to them in November if they keep this shit up. I hope progressive candidates challenge those recalcitrant Dems who still support SOPA/PIPA/ACTA the way Tea Partiers challenged incumbent Republicans did in 2010 (although there's was an astroturf campaign funded by the likes of the Koch brothers and FreedomWerks).
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Newt is a superior debater to Romney, but Romney fired his big and powerful campaign commercials. He spent $15 million vs Gingrich's $3 million, and it somewhat bought him control of Florida.
The KKK is largely religiously supported as well.
Somehow "equal rights" often gets corrupted to "equal rights for Christians", by the way. Not for gays. Not for Atheists. Not for Mormons. Not for Blacks (until King and others forced the issue...) You characterize MLK as a religious force, but note that much of the opposition to Black civil rights was religiously based and funded as well.
You can't have it both ways. You seem to be suggesting that in every issue where religious people were on both sides of an issue, that when the issue was finally decided, that "religion won". I don't think it has worked that way.
Also, the claim that the country was founded by Christians is highly questionable
Democrats are only "anti-war" to people that don't read history books. Here is a list of the major wars of the 20th century, along with the party in power when the US went to war:
[...]
Vietnam - Democrat
And to anyone who reads history past the 1960s, you'll note that the Vietnam war triggered a major shift in the political establishment that, combined with the Civil Rights movement in the same time period, completely upended and shifted around the balance of issues between the two parties. The Hippie movement captured the Democratic Party, leading to its current, relatively dovish stance, while the Conservative Backlash moved all the hawks into the Republican Party during the 70s and 80s. Combine that with the effects of the War on Terror, and the political lines are *very* different from where they were 40 years ago, when Vietnam ended.
I mean, if you read history that shallowly, you might as well accuse the modern Democrats of supporting slavery and prohibition and praise the Republicans for trust busting and support of labor movements. Honestly, I don't know why more people don't describe us as in the middle of the Sixth Party System than still in the Fifth.
In fact most of the conservatives I know blame the people involved in taking the copyrighted material, i.e. the user, and not the means by which they get it. The internet is a neutral method of communication. The people that post copyrighted material and the people that download it are at fault. It comes from view people as individuals, and not as groups. That is the basis of the conservative opposition to SOPA.
OWS does take donations for large anonymous donors. Its also not been around nearly as long as the tea party, and it hasn't had nearly as many hijacking attempts. Its not without ethical flaws either. what movement is though. That said I support OWS for the most part. Lot of good people. But you can tell there are a lot of party spoilers in the crowd.
I think it can be said that George Soros, MoveOn, and Al Franken, and the same media and financial industry goons support our rights just as much as the Kotch brothers, and their associated PACs. (your going to tell me there money, or support won't show up at OWS?)
The tea party was around before the big money and many of them have independant ideas. No I'm not a tea party supporter, but it still was a grass roots movement at some time. If anything rhetoric like yours is what drives them to the republicans and the funding machine for "protection". I also never been to a tea party event, but I've talked to some online and they seem pretty genuine. reciting democrat, and democrat agent FUD does nothing for anyone but the democrat party. The same assholes who accused the green party of being republican agents for not standing down. Its easy to say the democrats say that about anyone who is a less than loyal democrat.(Republican says say the same thing, I know).
Also the more allies against SOPA and PIPA the better. Its proponents are strong with what was bi-partisan support. I really don't think I owe the democrats anything, and I am OK with feeding them to the dogs. If they don't like it, they can try listening to the populace instead of their corporate sponsorships. If they wanna so viciously defend corporate sponsorship(bribes), they are no better than the republicans.
Its also noted the republicans who initally did support this bill, largely dropped it when their voters complained harshley. we need either more democrat voters who do the same, or a new leftist party.
The uniting issues across the Tea Party movement are fiscal policy, civil liberties, immigration control and strong national defense
Why is my dog barking so incessantly? Are you blowing a whistle of some kind?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Seriously, you have two choices:
1. Fundamentalist Christians intent on restricting what women do with their body, enforcing the teaching of ridiculous bullshit in science classes, selling out to the military.
2. Pretend Christians who are so beholden to the media companies and "green" businesses they rewrite laws to suit their mates, at the same time trying to control the flow of money amongst civilians to do "what is best" (e.g. using it to pay off banks, give to others).
I'm all for protecting intellectual property. But SOPA would have given police powers to companies. This WAS about internet freedom, and the 4th Amendment, too.
This place is overrun by paullowers, for sure.
Good point. If it can't pass a turing test it isn't a human being.
You are not in recession for the same reason that Australia and a list of others is not in recession. China is buying your stuff. What your government and mine does doesn't really make much of a difference to that either way.
I see the game, the "major" prefix is so that Iraq, Iraq, Afganistan, Grenada, Panama and a long list of other military actions can be excluded. Please play your little game elsewhere quietly and let the grown ups continue to talk.
Even Jesus spoke about the separation of Church and State.
What do they teach you in the schools these days?
Ronald Reagan at the end of his final term with progressing mental illness is seen as the the ultimate Republican by some at the loony end of the party so we end up with a lot of people trying to be a parody of an old, sick Reagan.
Some serious borderline treason rot definitely set in at the time of Ford (bribe from Indonesia, making the CIA more political than useful etc), but I think they see Reagan at his worst as the symbol of the "good old days".
Why copy something like that? Do they know they way he was thinking?
Hezbolla blew up how many Marines? They must have used a lot of explosives. I wonder if they'll buy some from us? Ollie North can sell it via Iran and nobody will find out.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that dumbocracy is not necessarily the best way to run anything. Facing the facts, it's apparent that the vast majority of people
a.) Don't even vote, and
b.) Those who do simply vote for whoever they "like" best, without getting into such distracting details as what this candidate may or may not actually do.
In short, dumbocracy (as it has now degenerated into) is nothing more than a popularity contest... Literally. The most popular candidate wins.
This has NOTHING to do with who's going to do the best job running the country. It has nothing to do with which party they're from. It has nothing to do with anything other than sheer showmanship, petty parlour tricks and very basic psychology.
Surprisingly often, what people NEED and WANT are two completely different things, and with the farcical dumbocracy presently operating, the majority of people tend to get large amounts of neither.
Not only are the qualifications of politicians highly suspect to say the least, but so are those of the voters. Personally, I think it would make far more sense for the public to elect officials into certain positions, rather than one "political party" or another, based upon the qualifications of BOTH the candidates AND the voters.
eg. ONLY medical professionals should be able to run as candidates or even vote for candidates to government positions concerning healthcare.
eg. ONLY education professionals should be able to run as candidates or even vote for candidates to government positions concerning education.
etc, etc.
Why? Because only these people are QUALIFIED to figure out what the majority of people actually NEED, as opposed to giving people things they may WANT but are not qualified to realize are counter-productive at worst and/or a waste of resources at best.
This would prevent people who know fuck all about your chosen field from fucking it up by being able to vote for some dumb fuck who knows less about it than anyone who actually WORKS in that field does.
And while we're at it, let's start having judges ELECTED to their positions instead of appointed by politicians who will expect them to always be sympathetic to their own pet pieces of legislation.
Oh, and let's change the motto while we're at it...
"By the people [who actually have a clue what the fuck they're doing], for the people [who don't]."
Google and Facebook are small business? Discover? American Express?
Thought that only lasts as long as China buys what we dig out of the dirt.
Religious conscience? When your religion derives from a book and you are not allowed to questions that book, there is no conscience. All you have excerpts from the book that you spit out as and whenever it is convenient to you.
...Something good came out of the GOP.
If the Tea Party can't get it together enough to have someone sane represent them, then they don't have what it takes to be a contender.
I suppose that statement applies to the Republican Party, too...
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
that the newbies in congress aren't quiet as bought-off as the rest.
Yet.
What that boils down to is that people pushing the idea of having a church run state should not be trusted.
It's not OMG HES RELIGIOUS BURN HIM, but instead OMG he wants to micromanage our lives or OMG he doesn't have a fucking clue of the consequences of what he's suggesting.
And you think China and the US were comparable in the 30's?
I'm pretty sure the Japanese didn't either.
They had an opportunity (European colonial powers either occupied or on the ropes) and a problem (US forces could interdict them from bases in the Philippines). So: a gamble. Try to take out a good portion of the US Pacific fleet for naval supremacy, then take out the Philippines, and *then* start acquiring European colonies (focus there because that's where the raw materials, either as minerals or as plantations, were.). It looked like a reasonable bet because the US looked to be somewhat embroiled in the European war (yeah, OK, that was FDR's doing) *and* they had a promise from Hitler that Germany would support them if they became embroiled in a war. That promise seems to have come about (read Shirer's Rise&fall: this from captured Nazi documents) because the Nazis were trying to get the Japanese to attack the USSR - but the Japanese had a non-aggression pact with the Russians, which they were abiding by.